BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 760 (Mendoza) - Distressed watershed: urban greening.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: May 11, 2015 |Policy Vote: not relevant |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: May 18, 2015 |Consultant: Marie Liu |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 760 would require that a public agency that
receives an appropriation of monies from Proposition 1 to
enhance an urban creek or its tributaries, prioritize its
spending as specified.
Fiscal
Impact: Unknown, but potential costs to the General Fund (bond
monies) for a public agency that receives monies from §79735(a)
to develop regulations to implement the priorities established
in this bill.
Background: Proposition 1, which was approved by the voters in November of
2014, included the authorization for $100 million for projects
that protect and enhance an urban create and its tributaries
(WAT §79735(a)). Proposition 1, similar to various previous
bonds, defined a "disadvantaged community" as a community with
an annual median household income that is less than 80% of the
SB 760 (Mendoza) Page 1 of
?
statewide annual median household income. (WAT §79505.5)
Under the California Global Warming Act of 2006, the California
Air Resources Board (ARB) is required to establish a statewide
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions limit such that by 2020
California reduces its GHG emissions to the level they were in
1990. The act authorizes the ARB to include the use of
market-based mechanisms to comply with these regulations. Under
that authority, the ARB established the Cap-and-Trade Program in
which ARB establishes an overall limit - or "cap" - on GHG
emissions from specified industries. As part of the
Cap-and-Trade Program, ARB auctions off GHG emission allowances
as mitigation fees. To date, ARB has completed 10 auctions,
taking in a total of $1.6 billion in proceeds. Existing law
requires that at least 25% of the revenues are to be available
for projects that provide benefits to disadvantaged communities.
For the purposes of this requirement, the secretary of the
Environmental Protection Agency is required to identify
disadvantaged communities based on geographic, socioeconomic,
public health, and environmental hazard criteria (HSC §39711).
The secretary has provided this identification through
CalEnviroScreen.
Proposed Law:
This bill would require that a public agency, which receives
funds from Proposition 1 to enhance an urban creek and its
tributary, give priority to projects that are located directly
in, or directly adjacent to, a disadvantaged community within a
distressed watershed and provide greenspace or other venues for
physical activities.
This bill would define "disadvantaged communities" as a
community that is considered disadvantaged under CalEnviroScreen
and has significant population densities, significant
concentrations of industrial facilities, and trade corridor
activity.
Staff
Comments: The definition of "disadvantaged communities" in this
bill is substantially different than the definition of
SB 760 (Mendoza) Page 2 of
?
"disadvantaged communities" used under Proposition 1. Staff
notes that if the definition used under this bill identifies
communities that would not also be considered disadvantaged
under the Proposition 1 definition, this bill could conflict
with a voter-passed measure. However, if this definition only
identifies a subset of the "disadvantaged communities" as
defined by Proposition 1, the language under this bill is
permissible. Whether this is the situation is unclear.
Staff notes that no public agency has received funds from
Section 79730 so it is unclear what agency might be affected by
this bill at this time. Furthermore, it is unclear whether a
public agency that receives this category of Proposition 1 money
would receive those monies in order for it to administer grants
to other agencies or whether that public agency would receive
the these bond funds for a specific project. In the case of the
former, the public agency would potentially be required to
develop guidelines for the distribution of grants for several
purposes, including to provide additional specifics for the
definition of disadvantaged communities. For example, the
definition of disadvantaged communities under this bill is one
that is identified on CalEnviroScreen, and has "significant
population densities, significant concentrations of industrial
facilities, and trade corridor activity. It is not clear what
would constitute "significant" for the purposes of this
definition. "Industrial facilities" and "trade corridor
activity" may also need to be defined to ensure transparent
spending of the bond funds. The guideline or regulatory process
would also need to assure that the definition of disadvantaged
communities does not include communities that would be
identified under Proposition 1, as discussed above. Staff notes
that grant program guidelines are frequently exempted from the
Administrative Procedures Act, which would minimize but not
eliminate regulatory costs.
There is the possibility that the agency would need to develop
regulations to interpret the bills requirements even outside of
a grant program.
Because it has not yet been determined how this section of
Proposition 1 monies will be administered, or by which agency,
it is unknown whether that public agency might have costs to
develop regulations to implement the language in this bill.
SB 760 (Mendoza) Page 3 of
?
-- END --