Assembly Member Leyva’s legislation establishes the Regional Climate Collaborative Program to be administered by the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) to assist disadvantaged and low-income communities to mitigate for and adapt to a changing climate. The program would authorize the SGC to award grants to collaboratives for a variety of local capacity building activities. It also requires state agencies or departments to target funds to under resourced communities. Local governments can be part of the collaborative. The bill is sponsored by the Trust for Public Land and The Greenlining Institute. It is supported by the California League of Conservation Voters, California Park & Recreation Society, California State Parks Foundation and Richmond Trees, among others. The District has supported in concept, but is seeking formal support approval by the Board.
Senator Beall’s bill will require the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the California Coastal Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, and a California regional water quality control board to keep an accurate record of permit processing times. It also requires the Office of Planning and Research to develop a joint multiagency pre-application and model fee-for-service agreement process for permits. The bill is intended to provide a transparent measurement of state environmental permitting for dam safety and flood risk reduction projects. It is sponsored by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. It is being looked at as a model for streamlining the permitting process for projects which receive funding from the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority.
Assembly Member Wood’s bill would require the Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention establish and administer the Forest Wildland Health Improvement and Fire Prevention Program (FWHIFPP). The FWHIFPP would promote forest and wildland health, restoration and resilience, and improve fire prevention and preparedness throughout the state. The bill would require no less than 18% of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund moneys, which are part of the state’s cap-and-trade program, be allocated for projects that improve or restore forest and wildland health and fire resiliency. The District could potentially benefit from these funds for projects included in the District’s Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan.
Assembly Member Frazier’s bill would create the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Abandoned Vessel Account in the General Fund. The fund would be available to the State Lands Commission to remove abandoned and derelict commercial vessels on lands, including tidelands and submerged lands, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The revenue for the fund would be derived from rental income from surface uses for lands in the Delta.
Assembly Member Garcia’s bill would establish the Office of Sustainable Outdoor Recreation (OSOR) within the Natural Resources Agency. The OSOR would promote economic development and job growth in the outdoor recreation economy of the state. In 2012, District staff convened with some of the major outdoor industry association members to discuss working more collaboratively on increasing market share for park and open space use, as well as growing their industry. Those efforts led to the District’s participation in an Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) conference in Washington, D.C. in 2016. Despite the engagement – and the fact that the outdoor recreation economy is $92 billion and supports 691,000 jobs in California – the OIA and their companies have had little involvement in Sacramento or in California policy. District staff and Advocate Houston have been working for several years to establish an OSOR to strengthen the link between the OIA and state government. AB 1918 is similar to AB 907 which the District supported last year. The key difference is the OSOR, under AB 907, would have been housed in the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development. AB 1918 would house the OSOR within Resources.
Assembly Member Carrillo’s legislation calls for the Department of Natural Resources to compile a list of all school districts which provide transportation to a non-profit organization. It then requires that list to be shared with all non-profits which provide outdoor experiences to disadvantaged youth. The bill also requires Resources to develop a grant program for innovative transportation projects that provide disadvantaged youth access to outdoor experiences. This is similar to the District’s concept in Measure CC extension to explore a partnership(s) with a transportation provider(s) in order to provide more disadvantaged youth access to District parks.
Senator Glazer’s bill would authorize the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to dispose of the “Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area” to permanently preserve the land for conservation purposes. After a public hearing process, the bill authorizes the Director of General Services to transfer the land to a local agency for less than fair market value if it is for the purpose of creating a park or open space. It also requires any revenue gained from the disposal of the property to be deposited in the off-highway vehicle fund. This would allow DPR to potentially sell the land to Alameda County or the District for the purposes of establishing a park.
This is a non-binding resolution supporting the current federal prohibition on new oil and gas drilling in Federal waters offshore of California. There have been no new offshore oil and gas leases in California since the 1969 blowout of a well off the Santa Barbara coast. Earlier this month, the Trump Administration proposed to permit drilling in pretty much all U.S. offshore waters – including the California coast. The proposal identifies 47 new areas where oil companies can buy leases between 2019 and 2024 – including protected waters. The North California Coast is one the 47 areas. A blowout or significant spill there could impact the Bay and District shoreline properties. Almost immediately after the announcement, the Trump Administration removed the Florida Gulf Coast from the list in the proposal, so now other states are actively looking for removal. This resolution helps the Governor and Federal elected officials push back against the Administration’s proposal.