BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2444|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2444
Author: Eduardo Garcia (D), et al.
Amended: 8/19/16 in Senate
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 6-2, 6/28/16
AYES: Pavley, Allen, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson, Monning
NOES: Stone, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wolk
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 6/29/16
AYES: Hertzberg, Beall, Hernandez, Lara
NOES: Moorlach
NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen, Pavley
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 56-18, 6/23/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: California Parks, Water, Climate, and Coastal
Protection and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill enacts the California Parks, Water, Climate,
and Coastal Protection and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018,
which, if approved by the voters at the June 5, 2018 statewide
primary election, authorizes issuance of $3.497 billion in State
General Obligation bonds to finance parks, water, climate
adaptation, coastal protection, and outdoor access programs.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/19/16 reflect discussions by the
AB 2444
Page 2
author, sponsor, and various stakeholders to propose a $3.497
billion parks bond across various categories including per
capita funding to local governments, park-poor communities,
state parks and conservancies, rivers and streams, and ocean and
coastal protection, among others.
ANALYSIS:
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) Enacts, by a vote of the people, The California Clean Water,
Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act
of 2002 (Proposition 40), a legislative ballot measure
approved in 2002, which authorized $2.6 billion in bond
expenditures for parks and other resource related purposes,
which was the last parks-only bond measure.
3) Enacts, by a vote of the people, The Safe Drinking Water,
Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal
Protection Act of 2006 (Proposition 84), an initiative
measure approved by in 2006, that authorized bond
expenditures of $5.4 billion, of which approximately $875
million was for parks.
4) Authorizes general obligation bonds which state pays out of
general revenues and that are guaranteed by the state's full
faith and credit.
This bill:
1) States legislative findings and declarations regarding
California's parks, natural resources and outdoor
AB 2444
Page 3
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 is 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 and definitions that
apply to all of the articles included in the Act, including:
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 15% of Articles 8 and 9 to be allocated for
projects in severely disadvantaged communities. (Ocean,
Bay, and Coastal Protection and Climate Preparedness
chapters.)
e) 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. These guidelines, where feasible, shall
AB 2444
Page 4
encourage, where feasible, efficient use of water, use of
recycled water, and capture of storm water, and provision
of drinking water to parks and open-space.
f) Requires the Department of Finance to provide for an
independent audit of expenditures.
g) Reverts unexpended funds to the administering entity.
h) Requires projects that use California Conservation
Corps services or certified community conservation corps
to be given preference for grants where feasible.
i) Prohibits bond funds from fulfilling mitigation
responsibilities.
j) Authorizes projects that include water efficiencies,
storm water capture, or carbon sequestration features in
the project design to be given priority for grant funding.
aa) Exempts the provisions regarding wildlife conservation
from the provisions regarding disadvantaged communities,
regional and local parks, and trails.
bb) Requires conservancies to endeavor to fund projects
that are complementary and not duplicative of authorized
expenditures pursuant to the 2014 water bond.
cc) Authorizes the Legislature to enact legislation
necessary to implement programs funded by the bond.
dd) Authorizes funds to be used by nonprofits to repay
financing costs that are consistent with this chapter and
allows 25% percent of grant awards as advance payments.
ee) Creates the California Parks, Water, Climate, and
Coastal Protection and Outdoor Access for All Fund.
4) Proposes $995 million in Article 2 for creation and
expansion of safe neighborhood parks pursuant to the
Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Act
of 2008. Additional consideration may be given to projects
that incorporate stormwater capture and storage. The
department must work with applicants to ensure that projects
maximize public benefits in perpetuity, and that the project
is implemented in a timely manner. Advance payment of 25% is
authorized so that the grant recipient implements the project
in a timely manner. Not less than 20% shall be available to
rehabilitate or improve existing park infrastructure. Of the
$995 million, $48 million is available in the Central Valley,
Inland Empire, Gateway, and Desert communities identified as
AB 2444
Page 5
park deficient.
5) Proposes $490 million for local and regional outdoor spaces
in Article 3. $450 million is for per capital grants to local
governments. $40 million is available to the department upon
appropriation for grants to cities and districts of less than
200,000 population. A 20% cost share is required by this
article except for grants to disadvantaged communities.
Provides in Article 3 provisions establishing a minimum of
$250,000 per each local government and the formula for
allocations to regional park districts. Provides that local
governments may not reduce their parks budgets below that
that existed on the effective date of this act. There are
also provisions related to reporting of grants, and the
expectation that recipients complete their projects within 8
years.
Allocates, of the amount in Article 3, $120 million for
competitive grants to regional park districts, counties, and
special districts for regional trails, regional sports
complexes, low-cost accommodations in park facilities, and
interpretative facilities that serve youth and communities of
color.
6) Proposes, in Article 3.5, that $187,500,000 be allocated to
multi-benefit urban greening projects. $115 million would be
available for grants from the Natural Resources Agency for
the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, to be divided
equally. $12.5 million would be available to the Santa Ana
River Program of the Coastal Conservancy with a provision
that half the funding go to the most park-deficient
communities. $60 million would be available to the Strategic
Growth Council for competitive grants to public entities and
nonprofits for storm water capture projects or green
infrastructure projects that provide for at least two of the
following: flood control, reduce water pollution, increase
wildlife habitat, promote adaptation to sea level rise, or
reduce heat island effects. In the event that Los Angeles
County's local parks measure passes in November, $10 million
from this article may be appropriated to it as a block grant.
AB 2444
Page 6
7) Proposes in Article 4, that $370 million be available to
various purposes at California state parks. $20 million would
be available for enterprise projects, $20 million to local
agencies that operate units of state parks, and $12.5 million
to nonprofits that operate units of state parks pursuant to
operating agreements. Of this latter amount, $5 million shall
be available to a nonprofit operating a state park in the
Inland Empire. In addition, Article 4 proposes that major
infrastructure deficiencies be addresses on a regional basis,
with $50 million to be allocated among the regions by the
department and each region getting an allocation of either
$10 or $15 million.
8) Proposes, in Article 5, the expenditure of $50 million to
the Natural Resources Agency for competitive grants to
public, tribal, and nonprofit agencies to provide
non-motorized infrastructure improvements. Up to 25% may be
used for innovative transportation projects to bring
disadvantaged youth to the outdoors. Matching funds of 20%
are required except for disadvantaged communities.
9) Proposes, in Article 6, that $45 million go to competitive
grants to rural cities and counties and districts in
non-urbanized areas. A 20% match is required except for
disadvantaged communities. Non-urbanized areas are counties
of less than 500,000 people.
10)Proposes in Article 7, $115 million to the California
Natural Resources Agency, subject to appropriation, for river
parkways and urban streams. A 20% match is required except in
disadvantaged communities. Not less than $7.5 million shall
be available for the Lower American River Conservancy Program
if that program is created. Not less than $10million shall be
available to the Guadalupe River upon enactment of subsequent
legislation that demonstrates a comprehensive restoration
approach. $37.5 million would go to the Salton Sea Authority
for projects that provide air quality and habitat benefits
and $10 million would go to projects that benefit the New
River.
11)Proposes $165 million for state conservancies, as follows:
AB 2444
Page 7
a) Baldwin Hills, $5 million.
b) California Tahoe Conservancy, $20 million.
c) Coachella Mountains Conservancy, $10 million.
d) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy, $15 million.
e) San Diego River Conservancy, $15 million.
f) San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and
Mountains, $30 million with the provision that $2.5
million match US Forest Service upper watershed activities
and that $22.5 million be made available for improvements
along the San Gabriel River.
g) San Joaquin River Conservancy, $10 million.
h) Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, $30 million
i) Sierra Nevada Conservancy, $30 million.
The conservancies must all develop a strategic master plan.
12)Proposes in Article 8, that $200 million be available upon
appropriation for coastal and ocean resources. $55 million to
the Ocean Protection Council, $50 million to the San
Francisco Bay Conservancy Program, and $95 million to the
Coastal Conservancy for protection of beaches, bays, and
coastal watershed and ag resources, including projects that
may complete the California Coastal Trail.
13)Proposes in Article 9, that $722,500,000 be available upon
appropriation for climate change adaptation and resiliency
projects. Of this, $427.5 million would go to the Wildlife
Conservation Board for wildlife corridors and open space,
habitat acquisitions that would benefit wildlife and
endangered species, projects that would provide habitat
connectivity and public access.
Of the funds in Article 9, $70 million would go to the
existing natural community conservation planning programs
across the state. $10 million would go to wildlife rehab
centers based on competitive grants by the Department of Fish
and Wildlife. No less than $40 million would go to wildlife
corridors and habitat for the Pacific Flyway and the
California Waterfowl Habitat Program. $40 million would go to
projects that assist coastal communities, including commercial
AB 2444
Page 8
fisheries, to adapt to climate change, including projects that
address ocean acidification, sea level rise, or habitat. $80
million would go to forest projects that help reduce fuel
risk, adapt forests to climate change, and other disturbances.
These funds would be administered equally by the Sierra Nevada
Conservancy and the Department of Forestry with $7.5 million
of the Department's funds going to is urban forestry program.
Of the funds in Article 9, $50 million would go to the state
conservation corps for watershed, parks, and fuel reduction
projects, with the funds going to local community
conservation corps. $110 million shall be available to the
Natural Resources Agency for various categories of projects
including protection of Native American cultural sites and
resources, repurposing fossil fuel plants to create open
space, grants to areas not within the boundaries of state
conservancies, science centers, community athletic sites,
centers that recognize the contributions of California's
diverse ethnic communities, and visitor centers to provide
education about natural landscapes, aquatic species, or
wildlife migratory patterns.
14)Proposes in Article 10 for the advance payment for water
projects under specified conditions including completion of
integrated regional water management plans where the project
proponent is a nonprofit or a disadvantaged community.
15)Proposes, in Article 11, the usual fiscal provisions that
accompany a general obligation bond.
16)Provides for the submission of these provisions to the
voters at the June 5, 2018, statewide primary direct
election.
Comments
Senate Appropriations amendments limited the bond to $2 billion
and had a 60-40% split of the funds going to the Upper and Lower
Los Angeles River, respectively. Both amendments are changed by
the current version of the bill.
AB 2444
Page 9
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/22/16)
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
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
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
AB 2444
Page 10
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
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
Pacific Forest Trust
AB 2444
Page 11
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 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
The Greenlining Institute
The Nature Conservancy
The Trust for Public Land
TODEC Legal Center
TreePeople
United Ways of California
Watershed Conservation Authority
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/20/16)
Howard Jarvis Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author notes that to maintain a high
quality of life for California's growing population the state
requires a continuing investment in parks, recreation
AB 2444
Page 12
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
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
AB 2444
Page 13
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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 56-18, 6/23/16
AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta,
Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley,
Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin,
Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Levine, Lopez, Low, Maienschein,
McCarty, Medina, Mullin, O'Donnell, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas,
Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber,
Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Grove,
Harper, Jones, Kim, Linder, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez,
Obernolte, Patterson, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron
NO VOTE RECORDED: Achadjian, Chang, Chávez, Gallagher,
Nazarian, Olsen
Prepared by:William Craven / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116
8/22/16 21:33:53
**** END ****