BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1077
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 18, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1077 (Carter) - As Amended: April 28, 2011
Policy Committee: Water, Parks and
Wildlife Vote: 9-4
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits a person from developing land within
two-and-a-half miles of Colonel Allensworth State Historic Park
in a manner the State Parks and Recreation Commission
determines, after public hearing, is incompatible with the
historical, cultural, or recreational significant of the park.
The bill allows a determination of incompatibility to be
appealed to the Secretary for Natural Resources.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Minor, absorbable costs to the Department of Parks and
Recreation to consider proposed land uses within
two-and-a-half miles of the park.
2)Potential costs of an unknown amount, but likely substantial,
resulting from legal challenges brought by property owners,
who as a result of this bill, are unable to develop their
properties as they would like.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author describes the intent of this bill as
seeking to support growth and economic development around the
park while also protecting the unique cultural and historical
aspects of the park.
2)Background. The Colonel Allensworth State Historic Park was
set aside to preserve and honor a unique part of California's
history at the town of Allensworth. Allensworth is the only
California town founded, financed and governed by African
AB 1077
Page 2
Americans. The small farming community was founded in 1908 by
Colonel Allen Allensworth and others dedicated to improving
the economic and social status of African Americans.
Uncontrollable circumstances, including a drop in the area's
water table, the onset of the Great Depression, and arsenic
contamination of groundwater wells, led to the town's demise.
In 1974 California State Parks purchased land within the
historical townsite of Allensworth, which became Colonel
Allensworth State Historic Park. The park includes restored
and reconstructed buildings, including houses, a schoolhouse,
a church, and library.
In 2007, the Tulare County Board of Supervisors approved a
final environmental impact report (EIR) and special use permit
to allow the Etchegaray Dairies to operate near the park's
periphery, despite concerns about the compatibility of the
dairy with the park filed by state and federal agencies. The
Attorney General filed suit against the county, alleging
violations of the California Environmental Quality Act,
including that the EIR failed to meaningfully evaluate the
impact of the dairy on the unique historical resources and
setting of Colonel Allensworth State Historic Park, and that
it did not adequately address environmental impacts on the
adjacent Pixley National Wildlife Refuge and Allensworth
Ecological Reserve. The issue was resolved by a deal,
negotiated between the Department of Parks Recreation and the
landowners, for the purchase of a conservation easement by the
state that prevented establishment of the dairy.
3)State Law Restricts Land Use for a Variety of Reasons. State
government has the authority to regulate land use and
exercises that authority regularly. For example, to protect
public safety, the state restricts building construction
within the vicinity of earthquake faults. Similarly, the
state prohibits certain uses of land, such as illegal drug
cultivation, again in the interest of public safety.
This bill differs from those examples in that it seeks to
restrict use of land in the interest of public welfare,
specifically the cultural, historic and recreational value of
Colonel Allensworth State Historic Park. It is unknown
whether the state has exercised its land use authority in this
way in another instance to protect public welfare. More
AB 1077
Page 3
typically, the state would influence land use decisions that
do not affect public safety through lobbying local land use
authorities, purchasing easements, or, in more extreme cases,
using eminent domain. Notably, the state typically
compensates a land owner when it exercises either of these
latter two options.
However, the bill declares the unique historical and cultural
resources of the park. If the Legislature accepts those
declarations, then the state may be justified in a unique
exercise, or at least rare application, of its land use
authority to protect public welfare. In addition, this bill
does not prohibit all uses of land within the area around the
park, only those uses that the commission finds to be
incompatible with the historical, cultural, or recreational
significance of the park. Nonetheless, the state is likely to
face legal challenge by those who feel their property rights
and material interests have been harmed as a result of this
bill.
4)Related Legislation. In 2007, this author introduced AB 576,
which would have prohibited certain land uses, such as
diaries, within five miles of the park. The author dropped
the bill following placement of the easement on proposed dairy
site.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081