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 update or
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 --