BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2651|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2651
Author: Gomez (D)
Amended: 5/25/16 in Senate
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/8/16
AYES: Hertzberg, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Lara, Pavley
NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/2/16 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT: Greenway easements
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill makes clarifying changes to state law
authorizing the use of greenway easements.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Requires each city and county to prepare and periodically
AB 2651
Page 2
update a comprehensive, long-range general plan to guide
future decisions.
2)Requires the general plan to include seven elements that
define how the city or county envisions particular aspects of
a community in the future, including land use, circulation,
housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety elements.
3)Authorizes certain entities to acquire easements for the
purpose of developing greenways along urban waterways (AB
1251, Gomez, Chapter 639, Statutes of 2015)
4)Creates a new type of enforceable restriction on the use of
property, called a "greenway easement," that dedicates the
land for the purpose of developing greenways along urban
waterways.
5)Defines a greenway as a separate path for bikes and
pedestrians that must be located within 400 yards of an urban
waterway, where access to the property has been granted
through some sort of agreement with the property owner, or
operator of any facilities on the land. Additionally, a
greenway must:
a) Contain landscaping that:
i) "Improves" rivers and streams,
ii) Provides flood protection benefits and
iii) Incorporates the significance and value of natural,
historical and cultural resources as documented in the
local agency's applicable planning document.
b) Provide nearby communities with easy access to the path
and include features that allow the use of the path.
c) Meet any design standards for greenways that are set by
a relevant local agency's planning documents.
6)Defines an urban waterway to be a creek, stream, or river that
crosses developed property, or open space where the relevant
local agency's planning document designates the land as
AB 2651
Page 3
residential, commercial, or industrial.
7)States that local agencies may include greenways in the open
space element of their general plans.
8)Requires assessors to consider the effect of greenway
easements, (as enforceable restrictions) on the value of
property and corrects a cross-reference in the Revenue and
Taxation Code.
This bill:
1)Allows greenway easements to be used to preserve existing
greenways.
2)Requires greenway easements that are used to develop new
greenways to be consistent with relevant restoration efforts
along the urban waterway, if any.
3)Allows local governments to designate greenways in the land
use element of their general plans.
4)Provides that greenways may only include public amenities in
"urbanized areas," as defined by the California Environmental
Quality Act.
Comments
Purpose of the bill. Greenways can promote economic
development, environmental conservation, public health, and the
overall quality of life by enhancing the ability of residents to
connect with natural spaces near and along urban waterways.
Last year, the Legislature took an important step to promote
their development by passing AB 1251 (Gomez, 2015), which
allowed government agencies and nonprofit organizations to use
greenway easements to ensure that land developed as a greenway
stays that way in perpetuity, instead of being converted to
AB 2651
Page 4
other, more intensive uses in the future. AB 2651 makes
clarifying changes to the greenway easements statute in order to
limit the development of amenities to within an urbanized area,
clarify that a greenway easement may be used to preserve
greenways adjacent to urban waterways as well as develop new
ones, and moves greenways from the open-space element to a more
appropriate location in the land use element of a general plan.
These changes further the intent of the original measure and are
consistent with existing laws regarding the development and
preservation of open space.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Unknown net impact on property tax revenues, a portion of
which must be backfilled by the state General Fund. The bill
could potentially both expand opportunities for designating
greenway easements by authorizing them for preservation of
existing greenways in some cases, and reduce opportunities by
limiting greenway easements to urbanized areas. The net
impacts are unquantifiable, but the bill could potentially
result in a reduction in property tax revenues, approximately
half of which are allocated to schools on a statewide basis.
The state General Fund generally backfills schools for any
loss in property tax revenues, pursuant to Proposition 98.
Minor reimbursable mandate costs, if any, for local assessors
to revise property tax assessments for properties designated
as greenway easements (General Fund). Any local costs to
designate easements in the land use element rather than the
open space element of the general plan would not be
reimbursable.
AB 2651
Page 5
SUPPORT: (Verified8/12/16)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/12/16)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/2/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker,
Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke,
Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley,
Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier,
Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson,
Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Holden,
Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder,
Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina,
Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen,
Patterson, Quirk, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark
Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Wood,
Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: Beth Gaines, Roger Hernández, Ridley-Thomas,
Williams
Prepared by:Anton Favorini-Csorba / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119
8/15/16 19:39:54
**** END ****
AB 2651
Page 6