BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Fran Pavley, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2444 Hearing Date: June 28,
2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Eduardo Garcia | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Version: |June 23, 2016 Amended |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |Yes |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|William Craven |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: California Parks, Water, Climate, and Coastal
Protection and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2016
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
1) Authorizes the Legislature to pass legislation, by a 2/3
vote, to place a proposed general obligation bond measure before
the voters on the statewide ballot, to authorize the sale of
bonds to finance various state purposes. General obligation
bonds have been one of the primary methods voters have used to
fund the acquisition and improvement of park lands, open space,
and wildlife areas; water conservation and infrastructure
projects, and related purposes.
2) The California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood
Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 (Proposition 40), a
legislative ballot measure approved by the voters in 2002,
authorized $2.6 billion in bond expenditures for parks and other
resource related purposes.
3) The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood
Control, River and Coastal Protection Act of 2006 (Proposition
84), an initiative measure approved by the voters in 2006,
authorized bond expenditures of $5.4 billion, of which
approximately $875 million was for parks.
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 2
of ?
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would enact the California Parks, Water, Climate, and
Coastal Protection and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2016,
which, if approved by the voters, would authorize issuance of
$3.12 billion in State General Obligation bonds to finance
parks, water, climate adaptation, coastal protection, and
outdoor access programs.
Specifically, this bill:
1) States legislative findings and declarations regarding
California's parks, natural resources and outdoor opportunities,
and the scale of unmet need and demand for, and lack of equal
access to, those resources and activities. It contains findings
and declarations regarding the benefits of investments for these
purposes to public health, and to state and local economies.
2) States that it is the intent of the people of the state that:
a) Public investments authorized by this bill provide public
benefits and address the most critical statewide needs and
priorities;
b) Priority be given to projects that leverage other funding
sources;
c) Projects receiving funding include signage informing the
public of the bond investments;
d) Administering entities be encouraged when developing
program guidelines for urban recreation and habitat
projects, to give favorable consideration to projects that
both provide urban recreation and protect or restore natural
resources, to the extent practicable, and authorizes
entities to pool funding for such purposes.
3) Includes a number of general provisions that apply to all of
the articles included in the Act, including:
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 3
of ?
a) Allows up to 10% of funds in each category to be used for
planning and monitoring. Planning funds for projects in
disadvantaged communities can exceed the 10% if needed.
b) Requires at least 20% of funds in each article to be
allocated to severely disadvantaged communities.
c) Allows up to 10% of funds to go toward technical
assistance. Technical assistance may exceed 10% for
disadvantaged communities if needed.
d) Requires agencies administering the bond to develop
project solicitation and evaluation guidelines, to conduct 3
public meetings, and to publish draft guidelines on the
Internet.
e) Requires the Department of Finance to provide for an
independent audit of expenditures.
f) Requires projects that use California Conservation Corps
services or certified community conservation corps to be
given preference for grants where feasible.
g) Authorizes projects that include water efficiencies,
stormwater capture, or carbon sequestration features in the
project design to be given priority for grant funding.
h) Authorizes the Legislature to enact legislation necessary
to implement programs funded by the bond.
4) Authorizes funds to be available, upon appropriation of the
Legislature, for all of the following programs and purpose as
identified in each article of the bill:
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 4
of ?
a) Article 2 which would make available $995 million for
creation and expansion of safe neighborhood parks in
park-poor communities, in accordance with the Statewide Park
Development and Community Revitalization Act of 2008
competitive grant program [AB 31 (De León), Chapter 623,
Statutes of 2008].
b) Article 3 would provide $1.070 billion for local and
regional outdoor spaces as follows:
i) $450 million for local park rehabilitation and
improvement grants to local governments on a per capita
basis. Requires a 20% local match unless the entity is a
disadvantaged community. Describes the formula to be used
to allocate the per capita funds between cities,
districts, counties, and regional park districts, based
on population.
ii) $35 million for grants to cities and districts of
less than 200,000 population in urbanized counties of
less than 500,000 total population. A 20% match is
required except for disadvantaged communities.
iii) 60% of the $450 million is to go to cities and
districts that are not regional park districts on a per
capita basis except each jurisdiction receives a minimum
of $250,000.
iv) 40% of the $450 million is to go to counties and
regional park districts on a per capita basis.
There is a prohibition on recipients reducing their local
expenditures after receiving bond funding. Grants must be
consistent with local general plans or parks plans. There
is a three year provision on encumbering a grant.
c) Article 4 contains $350 million in funding for state
parks, as follows:
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 5
of ?
i) These funds are limited to existing parks for
restoration and preservation, and to increase public
access. No less than 80% of these funds must be directed
to capital improvements that address deferred
maintenance.
ii) $20 million for enterprise projects for new user
experiences and revenue generation projects.
iii) $20million for grants to local agencies that operate
state parks for deferred maintenance. A 25% match is
required except for disadvantaged communities.
iv) $70 million for infrastructure repairs at state parks
through new regional programs at state parks with $10
million in the Central Valley, $10 million on the Central
Coast in Ventura County, $15 million in the East Bay, $10
for the Inland Empire, and $15 million for San Diego.
v) $50 million for direct distribution by the department
to its existing 12 districts to address historic
underinvestment.
d) Article 5 contains $50 million for the California Natural
Resources Agency for Trails and Waterfront Greenway
investments. These funds would be for competitive grants to
local agencies, conservancies, tribes, and nonprofit
organizations for trails and non-motorized access to parks,
waterways, or other natural environments, to encourage
health-related commuting. Authorizes 25% of the total for
this program to be made available for innovative
transportation programs for disadvantaged youth.
e) Article 6 contains $50 million for competitive grants for
rural recreation and tourism to rural entities eligible for
under criteria established in the Roberti, Z-Berg, Harris
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 6
of ?
grants program.
f) Article 7 contains $210 million for clean water and
coastal programs including urban creeks of which a minimum
of 5% ($10.5 million) goes to the Santa Ana River program of
the Coastal Conservancy. The remainder is equally divided
between the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and the Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy.
g) Article 7.5 contains proposed funding for state
conservancies, as follows:
i) Baldwin Hills Conservancy, $5 million
ii) California Tahoe Conservancy, $17.5 million
ii) Coachella Conservancy, $10 million
iv) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy, $15 million
v) Salton Sea Authority, $25 million
vi) San Diego River Conservancy, $15 million
vii) San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and
Mountains Conservancy, $25 million
viii) San Joaquin River Conservancy, $10 million
ix) Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, $20 million
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 7
of ?
x) Sierra Nevada Conservancy, $22.5 million
xi) State Coastal Conservancy, $80 million of which 40%
of this amount would be allocated to the Bay Area
program.
(h) Article 8 contains proposed expenditures for climate
preparedness and habitat resiliency, as follows:
i) $615 million for climate adaptation and resiliency
projects that improve a community's ability to adapt to
climate change, including projects to improve and protect
coastal and rural economies, agricultural viability,
wildlife corridors or habitat, recreational
opportunities, or drought tolerance and water retention,
as follows:
ii) $340 million to the Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB)
for wildlife corridors and open space, for climate change
adaptation, for species habitat, and for existing open
space corridors and trail linkages of which $55 million
would go to the implementation of natural community
conservation plans and $10 million would go to nonprofit
wildlife rehabilitation facilities.
iii) $80 million would go to the Climate Resilience
Account to assist local communities and commercial
fisheries adapt to climate change, address ocean
acidification, sea level rise, or habitat protection
along the Pacific flyway.
iv) $15 million for projects that improve agricultural
and open-space soil health, to improve carbon soil
sequestration, erosion control, water quality, and water
retention.
v) $60 million for forest projects to reduce fuel
loading, and to invest in forest management practices
that increase the resilience of forests to wildlife and
climate change. These funds would be administered jointly
by the Department of Forestry and the Sierra Nevada
Conservancy, with $5 million available to the Tahoe
Conservancy.
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 8
of ?
vi) $40 million would be available to the California
Conservation Corps, with half of that available as grants
to local conservation corps, for projects in parks,
forests, and stream and river restoration.
vii) $80 million would be available to the California
Natural Resources Agency for grants to local agencies,
tribes, and others for restoration protection and
acquisition of natural, cultural, and historic sites.
Also eligible are projects to repurpose former fossil
fuel power plants as permanent open space and projects
that enhance natural resource protections in those areas
of the state not within the jurisdiction of a state
conservancy. A match of 20 percent is required.
5) Includes related fiscal provisions regarding sales of bonds
and implementation of the Act pursuant to the State General
Obligation Bond Law. Establishes a finance committee for the
bond composed of the Director of Finance, the Treasurer, and the
Controller.
6) Requires the Secretary of State to submit the bond act to the
voters at the November 2016 statewide general election, and
includes related instructions regarding preparing ballot
pamphlets and statements. Provides that this act shall take
effect upon approval by the voters.
7) Includes an urgency clause providing that it is necessary
that this bill take effect immediately in order to fund a
California parks, water, climate, and coastal protection and
outdoor access for all program at the earliest possible date.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The author notes, to maintain a high quality of life for
California's growing population requires a continuing investment
in parks, recreation facilities, and protection of the state's
natural and historical resources. It has been 14 years since
California last approved a "true park bond." The 2008 economic
downturn had a disproportionate impact on local, regional and
state park infrastructure. There is a high unmet demand for park
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 9
of ?
investment, as witnessed by the 8-1 ratio of grant application
requests vs. available grant dollars for park grants awarded
under the AB 31 Statewide Parks Program. Demand has been
particularly high in both urban and rural disadvantaged
communities where many still lack access to safe parks, trails,
and recreation areas. The author notes that according to the
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Plan of 2015 (SCORP), 38% of
Californians still live in areas with less than 3 acres of
parkland per 1,000 population, a recognized standard for
adequate parks, and 9 million people do not have a park within a
half mile of their home. The SCORP action plan highlights the
need for increasing park access to residents in underserved
communities by encouraging park development within a half mile
of park deficient neighborhoods, creating new trails and
greenways to provide active transportation corridors for
commuting, and expanding transportation opportunities to larger
parks. The author also notes the findings of the Parks Forward
Commission which highlighted the need to prioritize protection
of natural and cultural resources for future generations, expand
access to parks for underserved communities and younger
generations, and to address state park deferred maintenance.
Investing in parks and trails will help ensure all Californians
have access to safe places to exercise and recreate.
Additionally, continued investment in the state's natural
resources and greening of urban areas will help mitigate the
impacts of climate change and provide access to natural
resources for future generations. The author also emphasizes
that a priority throughout the bond will be to address the needs
of park-poor and severely disadvantaged communities.
There is a huge list of supporters of this measure. The general
theme is to support public investment in local and state parks
and resource protection that has not been able to be achieved
because of the recession and because earlier bond funds have
largely been depleted. There is also widespread support for the
emphasis on increasing access to parks by disadvantaged
communities and especially disadvantaged youth.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposes increasing the
state's indebtedness and questions whether improvements in parks
will endure for the life of the bond.
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 10
of ?
COMMENTS
1.This is an important measure that arrived in the Senate on
Thursday, June 23, and, despite this hearing, has not been
fully considered by members of this Committee or the Senate as
a whole. While staff is recommending amendments below, it
seems clear that the Committee will ask the author to agree to
a subsequent hearing after the July recess if the measure is
still pending.
2.The author wishes to add as co-authors: Assemblymembers Kevin
McCarty, Lorena Gonzalez, Luis Alejo (Principal), Susan
Eggman, and Marc Levine(Principal).
The following are recommended Committee amendments:
3.There should be an additional general provision added in
Section 5880.080 (taken from the parks bond proposal of
Senator De Leon) that directs the use of conservation
easements and voluntary landowner participation including but
not limited to the use of easements pursuant to Division
10.2(commencing with Section 10200) and Division 10.4
(commencing with Section 10330) of the Public Resources Code
and voluntary habitat credit exchange mechanisms.
4.Section 5880.07 should be broadened to include other youth
conservation organizations that serve at-risk youth.
5.Section 5880.075 should delete the term "whenever feasible."
6.Section 5884 should include as an eligible recipient the DWR
Riverine Stewardship Program that enters into partnerships
with local communities to enhance and restore waterways.
7.Section 5886 should include an allocation for the American
River Program of the Wildlife Conservation Board, provided
that AB 1716 (McCarty) becomes law.
8.This same section is intended to allocate 5% of $210,000,000
to the Santa Ana River and also to equally divide the balance
between the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the San
Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy
for their work on the rivers in the Los Angeles region. An
amendment is necessary to fulfill the author's intent as well
as to provide funding for the American River Program. Staff
recommends a $5 million increase in this category and a
provision that the American River Program (if it becomes law)
and the Santa Ana River Program each receive 4% of the total.
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 11
of ?
If the American River Program is not created, the Santa Ana
Program would be allocated $6 million and the remainder
divided as proposed by the author.
9.Existing allocations in this section would not provide any
funding for other urban stream projects in other parts of the
state. Staff recommends $15 million for competitive grants for
multi-benefit urban stream projects not otherwise funded.
10. Section 5887 allocates
funding to conservancies and contains an odd $5 million
discrepancy that disfavors the Santa Monica Mountains
Conservancy ($20 million) in comparison to the San Gabriel and
Lower LA Rivers and Mountains Conservancy ($25 million). Both
should be treated equally under the current or a future
conservancy funding proposal.
11. Overall conservancy funding
should be increased proportionally by the sum of $100 million.
12.This same section proposes $25 million to the Salton Sea
Authority. While not a conservancy, the Salton Sea Authority
does play a leadership role in fulfilling the conservation and
restoration work required by state law in that region. Staff
recommends that funding should specify that it is for capital
outlay projects that (1) provide air quality and habitat
benefits and (2) implement the California Natural Resources
Agency's Salton Sea Management Program.
13.Section 5888 should increase proposed funding to the WCB by
$60 million.
14. Section 5888 should
cross-reference the Natural Community Conservation Planning
Act's citation at Section 2800 of the Fish and Game Code. It
should also prohibit, as have previous bonds, the use of NCCP
funding to offset mitigation obligations so that the funding
is entirely used for the implementation of NCCPs. Because the
unmet needs of existing NCCPs are so extensive, staff
recommends an increase in this category of $20 million so that
the category would contain $75 million.
15. That same section should
clarify that the wildlife corridor funding shall provide a
priority to wildlife corridors threatened by urban
development.
16. Also in this section should
be an additional urban forestry category (taken directly from
SB 317 of Senator DeLeon) of $30 million.
17. This section should also
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 12
of ?
contain funding for the Department of Conservation to continue
its funding of watershed restoration and conservation projects
on agricultural lands pursuant to section 9084 of the Public
Resources Code. Staff recommends $10 million for this purpose.
18. The Ocean Protection Council
should receive an allocation of $40 million to be expended in
a manner consistent with the California Ocean Protection Act
and other state laws the direct the work of the Council.
These amendments add a total of $290 million to the proposal.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENTS
Comments 2-17are recommended Committee and author
amendments that will be processed after the hearing in
Governance and Finance Committee.
SUPPORT
Association of California Water Agencies
Audubon California
Azul
Bay Area Open Space Council
Big Sur Land Trust
Bolsa Chica Land Trust
Bronzan Consulting
Calcoast
California Association of Local Conservation Corps
California Association of Museums
California Association of Park & Recreation Commissioners &
Board Members
California Association of Park Districts (in concept)
California Association of Recreation and Park Districts
California Council of Land Trusts
California Center for Public Health Advocacy
California Coastal Protection Network
California League of Conservation Voters
California Native Plant Society
California Park & Recreation Society
California ReLeaf
California Special Districts Association
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 13
of ?
California State Parks Foundation
California Tahoe Alliance
California Urban Streams Partnership
California Wilderness Coalition
Carmichael Recreation and Park District
City of American Canyon Parks and Recreation Department
City of Chino
City of Dublin
City of Fountain Valley
City of Imperial
City of Morgan Hill
City of Poway
City of Torrance
City of Tustin Parks & Recreation Department
City of Lafayette
City of Milpitas
City of Montebello
City of Portola
City of Selma
City of Westminster
City of Victorville
Children's Defense Fund
County of Placer
Consumnes Community Services District Park & Recreation
Department
Defenders of Wildlife
Desert Recreation District |
Desert Valley Builders Association
East Bay Regional Park District
El Cerrito Recreation
El Dorado Irrigation District
Fathers & Families of San Joaquin
Friends of Harbors, Beaches, and parks
Fulton-El Camino Recreation & Park District
Golden Gate National parks Conservancy
Greater Vallejo Recreation District
Hesperia Recreation & Park District
Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System
Hills for Everyone
John Muir Land Trust
Laguna Greenbelt, Inc
Land Paths
Land Trust of Santa Cruz County
Latino Outdoors
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 14
of ?
Livermore Area Recreation and Park District
Mammoth Lakes California
Marin Agricultural Land Trust
Marin County Parks
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Mono Lake Community
Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District
Sierra Business Council
Orangevale Recreation & Park District
Outdoors Access for All(With Revisions)
Pacific Forest Trust
Paradise Recreation & Park District
Pathways for Wildlife
Peninsula Open Space Trust****
Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District
Policy Link
Rails to Trails Conservancy
Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District
San Diego County Water Authority(Support if Amended)
San Francisco Parks Alliance
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority
Save Mount Diablo
Save the Redwoods League
Sierra Business Council
Sierra Club California
Sierra Institute for Community and Environment
Sierra Nevada Alliance
Sierra Water Workgroup
Solano Land Trust
Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District
Sonoma County Regional Parks
Sonoma County Water Agency
Sonoma Land Trust
State Park Partners Coalition
Tahoe Mountain Sports
The City Project(With Revisions)
The Greenlining Institute
The Nature Conservancy
The Trust for Public Land
TODEC Legal Center
TreePeople
United Ways of California
Watershed Conservation Authority
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 15
of ?
OPPOSITION
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
-- END --