BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2185
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2185 (Gonzalez) - As Amended March 18, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Natural Resources |Vote:|6 - 3 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the State Coastal Conservancy (SCC), subject
to the availability of funding, to develop a program to provide
loans or grants to meet the operation and maintenance needs of
private low-cost coastal accommodations in exchange for an
easement or binding agreement to protect the public benefit of
the facility. Additionally, this bill:
AB 2185
Page 2
1)Requires SCC, in consultation with the California Coastal
Commission (Commission), Department of Parks and Recreation
(DPR) and other relevant coastal public land holders to
develop a list of potential projects in each region of the
coast.
2)Requires SCC to provide the list to the Commission and
requires the Commission to provide the list to local
governments with Local Coastal Plans (LCPs). Requires the
Commission is to use projects on the list as options for
coastal development mitigation or in lieu public access fees.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)GF or special fund cost pressures potentially in the hundreds
of thousands to millions of dollars range to provide the
grants and loans specified in the bill.
2)Increased initial costs to SCC of approximately $600,000 (GF
or special fund) to develop the list of potential projects,
monitor and enforce the program and determine how best to
grant public funds to private businesses. Potential unknown
future legal costs for defending the easements.
3)Increased costs of approximately $330,000 for DPR to conduct
the coastal zone assessment and advise the SCC.
4)Minor administrative costs of approximately $10,000 for the
Commission to provide information to SCC on potential low-cost
accommodation projects by region and consult with DPR.
AB 2185
Page 3
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, although the 1972 Coastal
Act requires lower cost visitor and recreational facilities to
be protected, encouraged, and provided, a 2006 Commission
report found that only 8% of overnight accommodations in nine
popular coastal counties were considered low-cost. This bill
encourages the Commission to improve their current approach to
coastal access, and increases the authority of the State
Conservancy to protect and develop affordable accommodations
along California's coast.
2)Background. The Coastal Act broadly protects public
access for all by protecting and providing for lower cost
public recreational and visitor serving facilities,
including but not limited to, overnight accommodations.
The Commission has carried out the Coastal Act mandate to
protect and provide lower cost visitor accommodations in
various ways. Additionally, the Commission has certified LCP
policies throughout the coastal zone with low cost
accommodation requirements.
Through coastal development permit actions, the Commission has
in some cases denied permit applications for development that
would eliminate existing lower cost facilities, and has in
other cases required low-cost accommodations to be constructed
in conjunction with new higher cost hotels either on or off
site.
AB 2185
Page 4
3)In Lieu Fees. The Commission has also collected over $19
million in "in-lieu" fee mitigation for impacts for low-cost
accommodations, and those fees have resulted in the
development of significant projects along the California
coast, including support for the 260-bed Santa Monica Hostel,
the restoration of Crystal Cove Cottages in Orange County, and
nearly 200 new State Parks campsites.
However, millions of dollars in "in lieu" fees remain
un-spent, and the Commission is currently engaged in an effort
to document all past "in lieu" fee requirements. The
Commission partnered with State Parks, SCC, regional agencies,
local governments, and non-profits on projects that spend "in
lieu" fees.
4)Implementation Issues. This bill requires list of potential
projects but does not require the analysis necessary to
determine ongoing operations and maintenance costs to
determine the costs and benefits of the projects. The author
may wish to amend the bill to include further analysis
requirements.
5)Prior legislation. AB 694 (Rendon, 2015) was almost identical
to this bill and was held on suspense in this Committee.
AB 2185
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916)
319-2081