BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER Senator Fran Pavley, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: SB 317 Hearing Date: April 14, 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |De León | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Version: |April 23, 2015 Amended | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Urgency: |Yes |Fiscal: |Yes | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant:|William Craven | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: The Safe Neighborhood Parks, Rivers, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2016. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW In 2000 and 2002, the Legislature passed two parks bond measures that were subsequently ratified by the voters. Prop 12 passed in 2000 and Prop 40 passed in 2002. These bonds invested in state parks, local parks, conservancies, and a variety of other resource programs. These were the last two parks bonds that were approved by the voters that focused exclusively on parks and resources funding. According the LAO, 95% of Prop 12 has been expended; 88% of Prop 40 has been expended. Prop 84, passed by the voters in 2006 as a citizen initiative, contained some funding for parks and other resource protection programs but was primarily focused on water projects. All of the remaining Prop 84 funds were later encumbered by the State Water Resources Control Board. While there are differences in emphasis among these last three bonds, there are also several common themes: The two parks and resources bonds prioritized funding for local parks, for grants on a per capita basis to all local governments with parks programs, for the state's conservancies, for ocean and working landscape protection, and for other recreational and educational opportunities such as soccer fields, zoos and aquaria, non-motorized trails, river parkways and watershed protections, etc. Prop 84 introduced the concept of funding sustainable communities planning and projects to help meet the state's climate goals under AB 32 and SB 375. SB 317 would continue that approach with funding for projects that would improve climate resilience of urban areas and natural resources. The bonds have all de-emphasized acquisition of new state parks acreage in favor of more funding for deferred maintenance projects. PROPOSED LAW SB 317 is an urgency measure that if approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, would authorize the sale of general obligation bonds in the amount of $2.45 billion. The bond is presently divided into four areas of emphasis: (1) parks; (2) rivers, lakes, and streams; (3) coast and ocean protection; and (4) climate resilience. A snapshot of the bond looks like this: Parks ($1.45 billion) $800 million to the Department of Parks and Recreation for the creation of neighborhood parks in park poor communities $200 million to the Department of Parks and Recreation for local park rehabilitation, allocated on a per capita basis $200 million to the Department of Parks and Recreation for restoration, preservation and protection of regional parks $200 million to the Department of Parks and Recreation for the restoration and preservation of existing state parks $50 million to the Department of Parks and Recreation for revenue generation activities at state parks Rivers, Lakes, and Streams ($370 million) $100 million to the Natural Resources Agency for the protection, restoration, and development of river parkways $100 million for implementation of the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program $100 million for protection, restoration, and development of Los Angeles River parkway projects $50 million for the Salton Sea Restoration Fund $20 million for urban stream restoration Coast and Ocean Protection ($350 million) $300 million to the Coastal Conservancy for protection of beaches, bays and coastal watersheds, including protection of coastal agricultural land and California Coastal Trail projects $50 million to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy for the protection of coastal watersheds of the Santa Monica Mountains Climate Resilience ($280 million) $100 million to the Strategic Growth Council for the development or implementation of regional or local greenprints or climate adaptation plans and for the protection of open space and agricultural resources $150 million to the Wildlife Conservation Board for the protection and expansion of wildlife corridors $30 million for the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for urban forestry grants In its general provisions, the following criteria would apply to all grants made with bond funds: ĎAll funds would be required to promote the states planning SB 317 (De León) Page 4 of ? priorities and the sustainable communities strategies. ĎThe wildlife conservation objectives would occur on public lands or through voluntary projects on private lands. ĎPriority would be given to wildlife and habitat projects that implement natural community conservation plans or endangered species recovery plans. ĎRestoration projects would include the planning, monitoring, and reporting necessary to ensure successful implementation of the project objectives. The four major funding categories: 1. Parks. The largest single funding source in the proposed bond is for the creation and expansion of safe neighborhood parks in park-poor neighborhoods pursuant to AB 31, legislation authored by then-Assemblymember De Leon in 2008 that is called "The Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Act of 2008." Although it does not have a dedicated funding source, AB 31 was major legislation that highlighted the need for new and expanded local parks in critically underserved communities. This need was recently re-emphasized by the Parks Forward Commission final report. These communities are defined as communities with less than 3 acres of usable parkland per 1,000 residents or a disadvantaged community which is defined in section 75005(g) of the Public Resources Code as a community with a median household income less than 80% of the statewide average. Eligible entities that could receive grants under AB 31 include local governments, regional parks district, local recreation and parks districts, joint powers authorities, community service districts, nonprofit organizations, and others. Grants could be used to establish places for organized team sports, outdoor recreation, nonmotorized trails, permanent play structures, landscaping, community gardens, and many other activities including activities tailored for youth, seniors, and other population groups. Grants would be awarded on a competitive basis. Joint SB 317 (De León) Page 5 of ? partnership projects between two or more agencies (including school districts, nonprofits, and local governments) would be encouraged. The department is authorized to provide technical assistance to grant applicants, which is important to communities that do not have professional staff savvy in the ways of grant applications. Projects would also be designed to provide for efficient use of water, including stormwater capture and reuse, reduced uses of pesticides and fertilizers, permeable surfaces, and uses of recycled materials. This section of the bond would also fund a $200 million per capita grants program for which all local governments may apply for purposes of local park rehabilitation and improvements. It would also fund $200 million in grants for restoration, preservation, and protection of regional parks, including state parks that are operated by and managed by regional or local entities. The state Department of Parks would receive $200 million for its deferred maintenance projects that would "increase public access and to protect natural resources." Lastly, this article of the bond provides $50 million to the department for its enterprise activities that increase revenue generation in state parks. This is also a key recommendation of the recent Parks Forward Commission and builds on earlier legislation that created the revenue generation program at the department. 2. Article 5 of the proposed bond would fund categories related to rivers, lakes, and streams. The Natural Resources Agency would receive $100 million for grants for the river parkways program. The California Tahoe Conservancy would receive $100 million for California's partial fulfillment of its share of the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program. (Nevada recently fully funded its share in its current legislative session.) The protection and restoration of the LA River would receive $100 million to complement the aggressive plans of the affected local governments in that region. The final two categories in this article are $50 million for assisting with the state's statutory obligations as the Salton Sea, and $20 million for urban stream SB 317 (De León) Page 6 of ? restoration grants pursuant to section 7048 of the Water Code. 3. Article 6 of the proposed bond would allocate $300 million for coast and ocean protection projects at the state coastal conservancy, with the provisos that this funding include projects to protect coastal agricultural resources as well as projects to complete the California Coastal Trail. The existing statute requires the conservancy to focus its conservation efforts on agricultural lands threatened by development. Additionally, $50 million would be allocated to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy for the protection of coastal watersheds of the Santa Monica Mountains. 4. The article entitled "Climate Resilience" would allocate $100 million to the Strategic Growth Council for a wide variety projects that would reduce vulnerability to climate change across the state's water, forest, and agricultural resources. These funds could also be used to develop local greenprints which are defined as those plans for providing parks, greenspace, and urban forestry within an urbanized area to enhance climate resilience, improve public health, and protect open-space lands around a developed area to support an adopted sustainable communities strategy. The Wildlife Conservation Board would receive $150 million for protecting and expanding wildlife corridors, for climate adaptation projects, and for projects to protect and improve existing open space corridors and trail linkages related to utility or transportation infrastructure that provides habitat connectivity and public access or trails. Finally, $30 million would go the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for urban forestry projects that are not eligible for funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The final provisions of the bond contain the procedural requirements that apply to the State Treasurer who would sell these general obligation bonds, establish the committee that will determine whether or not it is necessary or desirable to issue bonds, and other fiscal provisions. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT The very large list of supporters attests to the popularity of this proposed bond. Several large coalitions and many other single organizations are in support of this measure. SB 317 (De León) Page 7 of ? There is widespread support for the focus on park-poor communities that is the centerpiece of this bond. There is also widespread support for the per capita program (which many wish to see an increase in funding), as well as the deferred maintenance projects at the Department of Parks. Another area of the bond receiving significant mention in these letters are the programs to support working landscapes, the funding of the state conservancies, and the restoration of the Salton Sea. Environmental Defense Fund supports the use of habitat exchanges through which private landowners are compensated for making measurable improvements to critical habitats while preserving agricultural production and viability. The Nature Conservancy supports the bond and encourages the author to consider additional funding for the upper watersheds in the Sierra Nevada. Several other organizations share this concern and are identified as such in the list of supporters. Other supporters suggested more funding for the Department of Parks, although many letters were received prior the amendments that provided the department $200 million for deferred maintenance and $50 million for its enterprise activities. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION None received COMMENTS The bill is a serious effort to establish a framework for a parks bond that could be presented to the voters. It is clearly not a finished product. Several aspects of the bill will require additional work, which is not unexpected given that the bill is being heard for the first time. It is also clear that the author will be the recipient of many requests to adjust the funding in the identified categories and to create funding options for categories yet to come. That too is not unexpected, especially at this early stage. In fact, those requests will likely continue throughout the legislative process for the lifespan of this measure. The author, of course, will also need to carefully calculate the size of the bond, obtain support within the administration, and keep an eye SB 317 (De León) Page 8 of ? on the likelihood of ultimate voter approval. The Committee expects to remain active with this bill as it proceeds through the legislative process and reserves the right to re-hear it an appropriate time, which is a customary practice. The suggested amendments below are largely technical, and also add co-authors. Amendments 5 and 6 impose a cap on administrative expenses and authorize up to 10 percent of a grant to be used for planning. These same provisions were included in Prop 1. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS 1. Add Senator Pavley as principal co-author, and Senators Allen, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, and Wieckowski as co-authors. 2. Page 3, line 15. Change "and" to "or." 3. 5880.5 (j) "Protection" means those actions necessary to prevent harm or damage to persons, property, or natural and cultural resources , actions to improve access to public open space areas or actions to allow the continued use and enjoyment of property or natural ,cultural, and historic resources, and includes acquisition, development, restoration, preservation, and interpretation. 4. 5880.5 (k)"Restoration" means the improvement of physical structures or facilities and, in the case of natural systems and landscape features, includes, but is not limited to, projects for the control of erosion, the control and elimination of exotic species, removal of waste and debris, prescribed burning, fuel hazard reduction, fencing out threats to existing or restored natural resources, road elimination, and other plant and wildlife habitat improvements to increase the natural system value of the property. 5. Amend 5882.6: The sum of two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) from the fund shall be available to the department for grants for the restoration, preservation and SB 317 (De León) Page 9 of ? protection of regional parks and parklands, including state parks whose operation and management have been taken over by local or regional agencies, and other parks and parklands operated by regional park districts, counties, open space districts and open space authorities, and parks and parklands operated through cooperative agreements or pursuant to joint power authorities that include state and local agencies. 6. 5882.7. Add cultural and historic resources at page 5, line 39. 7. page 6, line 23. Correct a cross reference to the Tahoe Conservancy by substituting Title 7.42 of the Government Code, beginning with Section 66905, that furthers the goals and purposes of the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program . 8. Amend 5885.1 : The sum of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) from the fund shall be available to the Strategic Growth Council for grants to develop or implement a regional or local greenprint or climate adaptation plan, or updateor develop a climate adaptation element for a general plan, or add climate adaptation to a general plan and for the protection of agricultural and open space resources that support adopted sustainable communities strategies. 9. 79703. An amount that equals not more than 5 percent of the funds allocated for a grant program pursuant to this division may be used to pay the administrative costs of that program. 10. 79704. Unless otherwise specified, up to 10 percent of funds allocated for each program funded by this division may be expended for planning and monitoring necessary for the successful design, selection, and implementation of the projects authorized under that program. This section shall not otherwise restrict funds ordinarily used by an agency for "preliminary plans," "working drawings," and "construction" as defined in the annual Budget Act for a capital outlay project or grant project. Double Referral The Senate Rules Committee referred this bill to both the Committee on Natural Resources and Water and to the Committee on Governance and Finance. Therefore, if this measure is approved by this committee, the motion will include an action to re-refer SB 317 (De León) Page 10 of ? the bill to the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance, which will consider the issues within their jurisdiction. SUPPORT Amigos de Bolsa Chica Amigos de los Rios Anahuak Youth Sports Association Anderson Marsh Interpretive Association Association of California Water Agencies Audubon California Anza-Borrego Foundation Audubon California Benicia State Parks Association Benicia Tree Foundation Big Sur Land Trust Bolsa Chica Land Trust California Association of Local Conservation Corps California Climate and Agriculture Network California Council of Land Trusts California League of Conservation Voters California League of Parks Associations California ReLeaf California State Parks Foundation California State Railroad Museum Foundation California Tahoe Alliance California Trout California Urban Forests Council California Yacht Brokers Association Californians for Western Wilderness Canopy Central Coast Lighthouse Keepers Chino Hills State Park interpretive Association City of Benicia City of Encinitas Clean Water Action Common Vision Community Services Employment Training Conejo Recreation and Park District County of Placer Crystal Cove Alliance Defenders of Wildlife Ducks Unlimited Eco Farm SB 317 (De León) Page 11 of ? Empire Mine Park Association Environment California Environmental Defense Fund Environmental Justice Coalition for Water Fiesta de Reyes Fort Tejon Historical Association Friends of Balboa Park Friends of China Camp Friends of Lakes Folsom and Natoma Friends of Mt. Tam Friends of Palomar State Park Friends of Pico State Park Friends of Santa Cruz State Parks Friends of Sutter's Fort Friends of the Folsom Powerhouse Association Friends of the Urban Forest Hills for Everyone Hollywood Beautification Team Humboldt Redwoods Interpretive Association Huntington Beach Tree Society John Marsh Historic Trust Just one Tree Keep Eureka Beautiful Koreatown Youth and Community Center Land Trust of Santa Cruz County Los Angeles Conservation Corps Malibu Creek Docents Marina Recreation Association Marin Agricultural Land Trust Mendocino Woodlands Camp Association Mojave River Natural History Association Mono Lake Committee Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District National Marine Manufacturers Association National Parks Conservation Association National Trust for Historic Preservation Natural Resources Defense Council Nature Conservancy North East Trees Occidental Arts and Ecology Center Our City Forest Outdoor Outreach Pacific Forest Trust SB 317 (De León) Page 12 of ? Palos Verdes South Bay Audubon Paradise Recreation and Park District Peninsula Open Space Trust Pine Ridge Association Plumas-Eureka State Park Association Point Cabrillo Lightkeepers Association Poppy Reserve/Mojave Desert Interpretive Association Portola and Castle Rock Foundation Richmond Trees Roseville Urban Forest Foundation Sacramento Tree Foundation Santa Ana River Trail and Parkway Partnership Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority Save Our Forest Save Our Shores Save the Bay Save the Redwoods League Sea and Desert Interpretive Association Shasta historical Society Sierra Club California Sierra State Parks Foundation Solano Advocates Green Environments Sonoma County Trails Council Sonoma Ecology Center Sonoma Land Trust South Yuba River Citizens League Southern California Mountains Foundation Sports Leisure Vacations, LLC Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods Sustainable Tahoe Tahoe Resource Conservation District Team Sugarloaf The Malibu Adamson House Foundation The Trust for Public Land Topanga Canyon Docents Torrey Pines Association Tree Davis Tree Foundation of Kern Tree Fresno Tree Lodi Tree Musketeers Tree Partners Foundation Tree People Tree San Deigo SB 317 (De León) Page 13 of ? Trout Unlimited Urban Conservation Corps of the Inland Empire Urban ReLeaf Urban Tree Foundation Valley of the Moon Observatory Association Victoria Avenue Forever Waddell Creek Association West Hollywood Tree Preservation Society West Marine Environmental Action Committee Western Chapter, international Society of Aboriculture Will Rogers Ranch Foundation Woodland Tree Foundation Worldwide Boaters Safety Group Your Children's Trees Support in Concept or with Concerns Bear Yuba Land Trust California Association of Park and Recreation Commissioners and Board Members California Association of Recreation and Park Districts California Park and Recreation Society Carbon Cycle Institute County of Kern County of Santa Clara East Bay Regional Park District Latino Outdoors Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District OutDoor Afro Placer Land Trust San Francisco Parks Alliance San Francisco Recreation and Park District Sequoia Riverlands Trust Sierra Business Council Sierra Foothill Conservancy Sonoma County Regional Parks State Park Partners Coalition Truckee Donner Land Trust Watershed Conservation Authority Western Region, Tail-to-Trails Conservancy OPPOSITION None Received SB 317 (De León) Page 14 of ? -- END --